battlefieldfandomcom-20200223-history
Forum:Treatment of attachments pre-BF3
So what I've been noticing, going through a lot of pre-BF3 articles, is that optics, suppressors, and attachments which are nothing more than static parts of a weapon's model are being categorized and mentioned as being "attachments", "gadgets", and "weapons" of their respective games. In some cases -- such as with the underslung weaponry of BF2, BF2142, etc -- this is acceptable. In fact, the Assault's gadget pre-BF3 was actually the underslung GL. But with others -- most notably the optics and suppressors -- what we're dealing with is scarcely more than a part of the weapon's model. Take for instance F2000_(1.6x). Even though it had an optic in BF2 (as per layman's terms), in actuality all that "optic" is, really, is a mesh. It's part of the weapon itself. The F2000 has no special mechanics or anything. Similarly, the suppressed handguns in BF2, the suppressed sten gun in BF1942. This is nothing more than cosmetic changes. It doesn't have an actual effect on gameplay. It's just part of the mesh, with a special soundfile to go with it. My question to the other admins is this: how are we going to treat "attachments" in the games before attachments were actually attachments? Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 03:33, March 24, 2014 (UTC) Discussion To start off, I'd like to say that a similar question actually came up years ago regarding the optics of BFBC2. The question back then was whether or not the optics were an attachment, or a specialization. In the end, we decided that the RDS and 4x Scope were specializations alone, and not attachments. My position, following that line of thinking, is that we shouldn't have dedicated articles on these pseudo attachments if they aren't verifiably different from their standard counterpart (assuming they even have one) or the weapon they're attached to as a whole. We should mention, for instance, that the handguns in BF2 have a special variant with cosmetic changes, but I don't think that warrants the addition of a whole section for BF2 on the suppressor page. On the other hand, gadgets that are actually separate things (for instance the underslung GLs, or the bayonet from RtR) should have their own article/section dedicated to them -- but they should be called gadgets, not called attachments. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 03:33, March 24, 2014 (UTC) :Yes i agree with your point but for the F2000 scope for instance. True it was apart of the weapon in BF2 but it is an attachment in BF4. As such BF2 should still be mentioned in it. Now if a suppressor is only built in then yes we should not have it mentioned on the suppressor page but instead on the weapon itself. -- 03:48, March 24, 2014 (UTC) ::It could be mentioned in the trivia, but I don't think it warrants an entire section for itself. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 03:50, March 24, 2014 (UTC) :::I'd rather have at least a section on it. Trivia seems a bit to light for a variation, even if it is just cosmetic...-- Hyperborrean22Talk 09:25, April 9, 2014 (UTC) ::::The section would literally consist of "this attachment is featured in BF2, but isn't actually real". ::::And besides that, I'm doing it the way I said I would. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 16:34, April 9, 2014 (UTC) Just checking to be sure, but we should handle this like F2000 (1.6x), right? PSO-1 and PKS-07 are also in the same boat, and the articles look messy with the pre-BF3 games included. - 04:11, April 23, 2014 (UTC) :Yes. Юра15px|link=User talk:YuriKaslov 04:17, April 23, 2014 (UTC)